Tag Archive for democrats at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'democrats'

Don’t Waste Your Vote: Vote Third Party

Published by Casey Huxley October 6, 2008 in Politics. 13 Comments

It has been said (unsurprisingly often by supporters of one of the two main parties) that voting for a third party is wasting your vote. I beg to differ. In fact, it is often voting for one of the two main parties that is a waste of a vote.

Consider this year’s presidential elections. Already most states have been decided. There are only about a dozen or so states where your vote could possibly make a difference. If you live in Massachusetts for example, why vote for Obama and run up the total on what will be a certain victory? Or, for that matter, why vote for McCain in an already doomed effort?

However, a vote being “not wasted” is about more than just having your vote decide something. It is about expressing your views in a way that matters. So often, we hear that many people are voting for the lesser of two evils. Well, when you do that what you get is still evil, and you will never have anything else. Why not vote for someone who does actually share the majority of your views?

Now, for those who feel their views are adequately represented by either the Democrats or the Republicans, I’m not telling you to vote otherwise. The true tragedy of our system is that many people feel they have to vote for one of the two main parties and don’t even examine other candidates to see if they would prefer one of them.

Therefore, today I’m pleading with you to take the time to examine the positions of third party candidates. Below are some links showing many of the major third part candidates and their parties. (Note that due to overly strict ballot access laws not all candidates may be on the ballot in your state).

Third Party Links:

Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party

Bob Barr - Libertarian Party

Cynthia McKinney - Green Party

Brian Moore - Socialist Party USA

Ralph Nader - Independent

GOP Flip-Flop on Financing

Published by Colin June 23, 2008 in Politics. 24 Comments

One of the major party candidates wants to see the Federal Government spending hundreds of millions of dollars on presidential campaigns. This candidate also wants restrictions on donations, especially from businesses and wealthy people. This includes restrictions on the speech of religious groups as well.

The second major party candidate has decided to save taxpayers millions of dollars, by not taking this money in what is basically welfare for politicians. By this same token, free speech is no longer put into boxes based on timing, nor is money now channelled into rule-laden 527 Groups.

As I am sure the reader knows, the big-government position is being advocated by Republican John McCain, while, ironically, Democrat Barack Obama has forgone spending taxpayer money.

While this is already an almost comical commentary on the lack of distinction between Republicans and Democrats, the Republican National Committee has made themselves look even more foolish by criticizing Obama for his conservative position.

RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said the following:

In his decision to break his promise and forgo our nation’s public financing system, Barack Obama failed to demonstrate the kind of principled leadership that Americans are looking for in our next President. Obama’s decision is what we’ve come to expect from a candidate whose rhetoric is nothing like his record, and it undermines his own claims to represent a ‘new’ kind of politics. Clearly, Barack Obama is just another politician who is willing to do whatever benefits his own personal agenda.

While Obama is “flip-flopping” - it is the good kind - moving from a bad policy to a good one. Whereas McCain and the GOP’s steadfast adherence to their own hypocrisy is deplorable. The correct thing to do, is for the GOP to issue an apology for supporting a candidate like John McCain who claims to want to “reduce wasteful government spending” and subsequently supports federally-funded elections and free-speech restrictions.

What I suspect is the biggest problem with Obama’s move is that it is a break from the typical bipartisan agreements that the Dems and GOP have made to keep unfriendly elements (third parties and independents) from using wealth or grassroots support to crash their two party fiesta. That is the reason McCain-Feingold is in place - to enforce the duopoly currently in control of Washington.

Perhaps Obama really does represent change, and maybe his decision will have a positive impact on the future viability of non-traditional candidates. Either way, in this instance, it’s clear that public financing is not a viable program.

War Tax: Democrats Take One From the Right

Published by Colin October 3, 2007 in General. 12 Comments

In a rare show of actual strategic thinking - some democrats in congress have proposed a “war tax” to pay for the current war in Iraq - which has now lasted longer than either World War I or II. Though the purity of the motives were questionable, the action itself stretches deep into American conservative tradition when it comes to national defense.

Representative David R. Obey declared:

If the president is really concerned about stopping red ink, we are prepared to introduce legislation, which will provide for a war surtax… If this war is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for.

How is it that a democrat, after all the empty talk of “fiscal responsibility” from Republicans for the past two decades, actually invokes the justifiable tactics of the old right? Conservatives have generally loathed new taxes except in the event of war because wars need to be consistently funded and the population needs to feel the cost of the war, so as to be able to gage their own willingness to fight it. A war tax supports the troops who are going to battle by letting them know that the whole country is behind them - and is willing to sacrifice in the present just the soldiers themselves are.

The current “conservative” movement has rejected this principle, and instead chosen to require future generations to pay for their parent’s conflict. As in so many households in this country, the irresponsible pattern of “receive today, pay tomorrow” has been prevalent in Washington. Indeed, billions are borrowed from the Chinese each month to pay for this war. The US would be better off in debt to the mafia then China, which already holds one trillion dollars in reserves (releasing these would cause an inflation storm, the likes of which have not been seen since Wiemar Germany).

Much has been made of the Democrat’s move, especially the tried and true claim that “democrats just want to raise taxes.” However, what we are really seeing is part of a greater ideological shift. Republicans have gradually become the party of leviathan - where war is the health of the state and big government is no longer a threat to freedom, but a means to secure (the formerly left-wing) positive rights and felling of safety and security.

A war tax, in the current state of popular abhorrence to the effort, would result in a speeder exit than even the most anti-war politicians oppose. Again, not because of some political game - but because American’s don’t believe in or want to fund this perpetual war on terror.

However, these same Americans and their leaders on both sides of the aisle in Congress, are glad to pass the buck to their children.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Nov
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Zeal For Truth